Germany v XT another field of UNRWA operation? If the latter, which areas should be considered, and on what criteria?21 The CJEU made two key holdings: 1) National authorities should consider ‘all the fields of UNRWA’s area of operations which a stateless person of Palestinian origin who has left that area has a concrete possibility of accessing and safely remaining therein’;22 2) UNRWA’s assistance cannot be considered to have ceased where the applicant departed from a field of UNRWA operation (in which their safety was at risk and UNRWA was unable to provide assistance), but had previously travelled to that field from another field of UNRWA operation (where their safety was not at risk and they could have received assistance from UNRWA), in circumstances where they could not have reasonably expected to receive UNRWA assistance in the first field, nor to have been able to return at short notice to the second field.23 The Court clarified that when assessing possible entry to an UNRWA area, asylum authorities should consider, for example: whether the applicant has a residence permit; family ties; former residence; why they left a particular area; and relevant declarations or practices of authorities in the areas concerned. However, none of these considerations are necessarily definitive on their own.24 The Court observed that the authorities in the country of asylum have the responsibility to determine whether an applicant meets the pertinent criteria. However, they noted that XT could not obtain a residence permit in Lebanon and left the country in the context of increased deportations of Palestinians from Lebanon to Syria. All things considered, his departure from Lebanon did not seem ‘voluntary’.25 C Analysis The finding that UNRWA’s five fields of operation should be treated as one area creates additional evidentiary challenges for some applicants; but it is not necessarily fatal to most art 1D cases. It is still possible that an applicant could show that they do not have a right of residence, could not live in safety and dignity in any UNRWA field of operations, and that UNRWA assistance has ceased for reasons beyond their control.26 With respect to the second finding, for various reasons, the history of a Palestinian refugee travelling from one UNRWA field of operation to another should largely be considered irrelevant in determining exclusion. The Court’s 21 22 23 24 25 26 ibid [31]. ibid [67], [82(1)]. ibid [82(2)]. ibid [58]–[62]. ibid [74], [78]–[79]. See UNHCR, Statement on the Interpretation and Application of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention and Article 12(1)(a) of the EU Qualification Directive Issued in the Context of the Preliminary Ruling Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 – Federal Republic of Germany v XT (C-507/19) (UNHCR Statement 18 Aug 2020) [24]. The statement asserts that applicants should only be assessed with respect to UNRWA fields of operation in which they had previously lived, rather than all five fields. 109